Alternative Energy In California

The U.S obtains more than 84% of its energy from fossil fuels including oil, coal and natural gas. This is because people rely on it to heat their homes, power industries, run vehicles, manufacturing, and provision of electricity. It is apparent that the country’s transportation industry highly depends on conventional petroleum oil, which is responsible for global warming, thus threatening economic opulence and national security. Apart from that, increasing consumption of fossil fuels have elevated health problems in the state, destroyed wild places, and polluted the environment. After conducting Environmental Impact Assessment, projections showed that the world energy consumption would increase by more than 56% between 2010 and 2040. However, fossil fuels will cater for more than 80% of the total energy used in 2040. Sadly, it will be a trajectory to alter the world’s climate, as well as, weaken the global security environment. Importantly, the rate at which the US relies on fossil fuels needs to reduce since it has adverse effects on the planet’s supplies. The society needs to realize that fossil fuels are nonrenewable, thus taking millions of years to form (Huebner, 2003). Notably, the country can reduce dependency on fossil fuels by practicing energy conservation and efficiency,

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.

Because most greenhouse gases would remain in the atmosphere for a long period of time, the temperature of the earth will be continuously rising. If global heat-trapping emissions proceed at a medium to high rate, temperatures in California are expected to rise 4.7 to 10.5°F by the end of the century1. With the rise of temperature, the climate of California would also be changed. California has large area of forest and farmland, hundreds of miles of coastline, large amount of snowpack, and other natural wonders. And these special treasures of nature are especially at risk2. So it is very necessary to understand the strategies of California to combat climate change.

California since the gold rush has been known as the “Golden State” where it’s flooded with multicultural richness from the beaches to the mountains. California today is the most densely populated state with 38.8 million residents and is still rising, however, not only is the population ever increasing so are gas prices. Allysia Finley an editorial writer from The Wall Street Journal states, “The national average is $2.76 a gallon, while the Golden State drivers pay $3.88. Eco-virtue is expensive” (Finley 1). Gas prices in California has left an effect of overpriced due to many contributing factors: regulation over the environment, overconsumption, and how rational people think at the margin.

Dr. Dan Jacobson a Professor at Stanford University has presented what he calls a “roadmap” to getting California to be run completely on renewable sources of energy by 2050. No “clean coal”, no natural gas, no nuclear, no biofuels, and no new hydroelectric. The golden state would be powered by wind, water, solar, geothermal, among a few others. And although i would love nothing more than to see california running completely on renewables by 2050. I think a transition completely off of fossil fuels cannot happen soon enough. Fossil fuels are toxic, hazardous to transport, disastrous to dig out of the ground and contribute to an accelerated warming of the planet. Jacobson notes that his map will create over 200,000 net 40 year jobs, reduce mortalities associated with air quality, and significantly cut worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. I do not disagree with any of these facts, becoming completely fossil fuel independent will lead to better health for ourselves, the earth, and the economy. think Dr. Jacobson makes some vital errors in neglecting to mention the much needed energy paradigm shift and in not addressing the issues associated with production of the renewable energy components.

In the article “A Unified West Coast,” investigative reporter and author Arun Gupta presents the unification of California as a model to build towards a net-zero emission. To reach net-zero emission and prevent later environmental issues, Gupta explains politicians and leaders must grasp the power of the monopolistic energy companies. He says that once politicians begin resisting the use of fossil fuels and the harm that they bring, communities all over will continue to form and support the progress towards a cleaner world.

It seems as humans evolve and advance, we also use nature to our advantage, and do not use any of our new-found technology to find ways to replenish those supplies which we so willingly take. Today, California is a test of our capability to adapt to human caused climate change. California’s first efforts to adapt started with the Assembly Bill 32 (the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act), which has goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Then the state later drafted its first climate

Nuclear processes should not be used to generate energy in California . Nuclear energy is the energy that is released during the fission or fusion of nuclei of Uranium. Major accidents in nuclear power plants resulting in radiation pollution is very dangerous and can easily affect many lives and up to three generations. Furthermore, with the knowledge that many people can easily get hurt from one incident, nuclear plants are attractive for terrorists whose goal is to hurt as many people possible in the shortest amount of time. Additionally, spent fuel from nuclear power plants remain harmful for thousands of years, (Kelly Kissock, 2017). On the other hand, research has shown that nuclear energy can decrease global warming and climate change.

The first reason why shift from fossil fuel should be mandatory, it is because, according to the research done by environmental scientist on global warming causes and effect. Experts warn the amount of carbon dioxide produced is increasing at an alarming rate, and many applied methods to curb green house gasses and use of fossil fuel turned out to make less of a difference than common sense would suggest. (Lee & Clark 1)

The current use of energy in the United States, especially California, is foreshadowing catastrophe in our environment. Due to high demand of fossil fuels, the air is filled with more pollution every day. In addition to, it can increase the chances of having global warming. Since fossil fuels are generated from raw materials which are easy and cheap users are becoming extremely dependent on them. The main problem with fossil energy is that the supply of fossil fuels is not continuous. However, alternative energy is continual and harmless to the environment. Biomass does not pollute the atmosphere as much as natural gas. One of the most convenient alternative energies that are currently used for minor purposes is

Windmill energy is an old form of energy that is now being modernized to generate electricity in our society today. The big question is whether or not it is a feasible replacement of energy for California. Through research it has been concluded that energy for California cannot be produced only by windmill energy. It can produce about 50% of California’s energy. All aspects including, location, cost, and environment are important to how much energy is produced.

We are already seeing the consequences of global climate change all over the world. Severe storms, flooding, heat waves, drought, and rising sea levels are all manifestations of climate change. Scientists are now more certain than ever that the current warming trends are anthropogenic, the direct cause of pumping billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while simultaneously destroying natural carbon sinks. Despite the overwhelming evidence, industry and the desire to burn fossil fuels has not slowed in the least. New fossil fuel exploration leases are granted every year by the federal government as part of the initiative to become “energy independent.” As demand for energy rises, the need to extract more and dirtier fossil fuels will rise as well.

A global concern for the limitations and consequences of burning fossil fuels came into existence decades ago, catalyzed by events such as the oil shock of 1973 and increasing CO2 emissions (Lovejoy 1994).

Before the last drop of the prosperous, cheap oil had been pulled from the grounds of Saudi Arabia, humanity had enjoyed a time of the greatest economic advancement in the history of mankind. Oil gave humans the ability to do tremendous amounts of work in a short time. Oil powered equipment which build infrastructure the roads, bridges and cities. Oil was fed into tractors and combines to work the land and produce ever greater crop yields. Oil was harnessed to make the electricity that powered millions of homes. Oil was the lifeblood of humanity for nearly 150 years. Unfortunately, this industrialization was obliterating the earth’s ecosystems and was the embodiment of the term “unsustainable development”, leading to deforestation, pollution and global warming. Today in 2062, oil trades for $1000 a barrel and is fast becoming even more difficult to produce. The only remaining deposits of oil must be mined in the already depleted oil sands of Canada, Venezuela, the United States of America and Russia. The exponential decline of oil production starting in the 2020’s forced humanity to quickly replace the energy source they relied so heavily upon. But in doing so, humanity changed many of their practices and created a far more sustainable civilization. The depletion of the earth’s oil reserves was one of the greatest moments in the history of mankind, since it forced humans to look towards alternative and cleaner energy sources.